KR_1250, did you even take the time to read my response? If you did, you'd clearly see that I'm challenging the formation of the universe, which is the Big Bang, the same theory being taught in schools. You wouldn't be wrong by saying I jumped into it since it's what I was targeting. I probably used the term "beginning of life" too loosely, but I wouldn't be wrong when associating it with the Big Bang. I don't know what "various theories" you're talking about, since I only mentioned one. Where else did I mention any other scientific theories? Other than thermodynamics, which still is important in the Big Bang, quote me.

How can you even ask that? You first started off talking about the begining of life then jumped straight onto the big bang. That isnt a confusion in terms, thats a completely different subject. Its strange how you come off all defensive then admit that later. Its as if you want to say "woops my bad" and "f**k you for pointing it out" at the same time. In any case its no biggie. Taking things personally like that does you no favours. I dont get that upset about what i thought was a grown up conversation.

And you would 100% be wrong associating the big bang directly with the origins of life. As far as we can prove they are separated by billions of years.

1: You supposed that the big bang and origins of life are synonimous. Fringe theory 1.

2: You suggested that some unknown calculation you failed to provide proves the universes structures (which you didnt identify) take longer than traditional explenations allow for. Mayeb your right but you did nothing to provide evidence. Fringe theory 2.

3: You suggested the compton effect may be a more impacting force upon redshift than traditional explenations accept. Fringe theory 3.

quote

Uh... did you just call red shifts and the Compton effect effect weaker explanations?

I am suggesting that more science needs to be done before someone can believe it so enthusiastically. And they are weak reasons to doubt the big bang with current knowledge. Hey, im open to the possibility aswell. But its just that, a possibility.

quote

I put so much emphasis on these "weaker explanations" because they comprise the main one, and are actually, in fact, extremely important. And these "weaker explanations" thus make the Big Bang full of holes.

And you would 100% be wrong associating the big bang directly with the origins of life. As far as we can prove they are separated by billions of years.

1: You supposed that the big bang and origins of life are synonimous. Fringe theory 1.

2: You suggested that some unknown calculation you failed to provide proves the universes structures (which you didnt identify) take longer than traditional explenations allow for. Mayeb your right but you did nothing to provide evidence. Fringe theory 2.

3: You suggested the compton effect may be a more impacting force upon redshift than traditional explenations accept. Fringe theory 3.

I'm not saying the big bang and the origins of life are synonymous, I'm merely saying one led to the other on a fixed timeline, which is why I used "big bang" generally. The beginning of life relied on the beginning of the universe to occur. Apparently it caused confusion, so never mind.

The structures of the universe refers to large celestial matter, which is the stretch of the universe as well as its expansion. The calculations I provided were the same calculations Dr. Edward L. Wright used in support of the big bang model.

The idea that the cosmological red shift was a direct effect of the Compton Effect is explained quite nicely in Grote Reber's "Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe". As a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense. You should give it a read.

KR_1250, no hard feelings dude. Didn't mean to come off so aggressive.

I didn't recognize that you were arguing for stable state theory in my last post >.> , but there are good reasons for why physicists (who are well versed on the subjects) choose expanding universe and the big bang theories over stable state.

In the first instance the Compton effect theory you suggested has it's flaws too: When we look at images through the Hubble space telescope the images come out crystal clear, now if the Compton effect were taking place (enough to cause a red-shifting effect) we'd get blurred lines in the images called Spectral Lines (effect of Compton scattering) which isn't the case. That's not to say there isn't anything there in the vacuum, but there's definitely not enough to cause a noticeable red-shift effect, not one on par with the Doppler effect in any case.

I assume you're familiar with the big bang theory, so I'll give you neat experiment to try on your own. take a deflated balloon and use a marker and poke some dots in clusters on various parts of the balloon. When you're done notice the distances between each cluster, then inflate the balloon and check at the distances again. You'll notice right off they're a lot further away than they were before. Basically the volume of the universe is increasing, but we just don't know what is causing this expansion (dark energy is the only guess). It's thought that the universe started off as incredibly small and dense (like a black hole's singularity), and all the matter and space crammed down into a very small pocket that, for whatever reason, inflated very rapidly. Because it was so small to begin with, this meant that the energy could even out in the universe before it got too large for this to happen. This energy is what we see spread out here. So in reality it wasn't a big bang, more like a big inflation .

An interesting note, the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest, astronomer, and physics professor. The same man also was the first to derive Hubble's Law, and estimate was is now Hubble's Constant.

The idea that the cosmological red shift was a direct effect of the Compton Effect is explained quite nicely in Grote Reber's "Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe". As a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense. You should give it a read.

That sounds like a plan, I should at least scrub up on the compons effect on redshift. Thats for sure. If it does turn out that Redshift (and presumably blueshift) are not caused primarily by the doppler effect then that is indeed huge for cosmology.

quote

KR_1250, no hard feelings dude. Didn't mean to come off so aggressive.

All good, i know how it is sometimes. You say one thing internally, it comes out as another online. I do it all the time. Bro-fist.

And you would 100% be wrong associating the big bang directly with the origins of life. As far as we can prove they are separated by billions of years.

1: You supposed that the big bang and origins of life are synonimous. Fringe theory 1.

2: You suggested that some unknown calculation you failed to provide proves the universes structures (which you didnt identify) take longer than traditional explenations allow for. Mayeb your right but you did nothing to provide evidence. Fringe theory 2.

3: You suggested the compton effect may be a more impacting force upon redshift than traditional explenations accept. Fringe theory 3.

I'm not saying the big bang and the origins of life are synonymous, I'm merely saying one led to the other on a fixed timeline, which is why I used "big bang" generally. The beginning of life relied on the beginning of the universe to occur. Apparently it caused confusion, so never mind.

The structures of the universe refers to large celestial matter, which is the stretch of the universe as well as its expansion. The calculations I provided were the same calculations Dr. Edward L. Wright used in support of the big bang model.

The idea that the cosmological red shift was a direct effect of the Compton Effect is explained quite nicely in Grote Reber's "Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe". As a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense. You should give it a read.

KR_1250, no hard feelings dude. Didn't mean to come off so aggressive.

Your second point doesn't seem to take into account the supposed unfurling of dimensions that occurred briefly after the Big Bang in which the universe expanded at a rate much larger than the speed of light increasing the size of the universe from the size of less than an atom to between 2 metres and 2 parsecs. I'm not saying it doesn't, but I can't see where it does.

And surely Compton Scattering can't say the Doppler effect has no effect on shifts of wavelength. Surely they could combine. Also Compton based on my knowledge would have no way of decreasing wavelength meaning blue shift would be impossible. I think I might be misunderstanding the point though. Neither of these are really counter-points, but more wanting more clarification.

On the topic of the thread I'd say that I think a belief in a god of any religion I've had explained to me is ridiculous. A universe as old and vast as this created purely for one species on one planet that took at least the destruction of two stars to create seems ridiculously self centred.

I wish that there was a God, but it seems impossible. I mean he wouldn't let people suffer. Where is Heaven? And why wouldn't he show himself to end people's questioning.

ATHIEST AND PROUD!!!

you make a very valid point. and i have to much faith in science also if there is a god wheres he been hiding for past 2000+ years

id probably say there is no god like there is no tooth fairy jus myths to frighten kids and scare people in doing what you tell them . if your bad you will rot in hell .no technically you will still jus in a coffin 6 ft under ground. if there was no religion would there be less fighting probably .

-------------------People are stupid, they will believe something because they want it to be true; or because they're afraid it might be true.